666 



Council's Salmon Strategy, and the additional requirements required by the Endangered Species 

 Act (ESA). We had expected that some of these measures cotild be funded with savings from 

 other activities that the Council would agree, based on changing circumstances and new 

 i nformati on, could be revised or deferred. 



The Council advised Bonneville that, except for some measures which BPA had previously 

 identified for deferral, the Council did D21 see an opportunity to revise or defer measures, and that 

 all measures must be fimded. In response, we indicated that Bonneville was willing to identify 

 some limited additional funding for weak stock protection in FY 1994 and FY 1995, and that 

 Bonneville wanted to work with the Council to identiiy the spedfic measures that were essential. 

 As of August 1 1, we believed that discusaons between the Bonneville and Council staflfe would 

 succeed in addressing the CouncQ's concerns. We were surprised, therefore, by your letters of 

 August 12. 



We were particularly surprised by the Council views about funding Phase IV measures. 

 Bonneville's funding levels for the next two years were set to be as lean as possible because of our 

 financial problems. We also believed that the region, inchiding the Council, agreed that Bonneville 

 needed to transition from a program focused on doubling overall rvuis to one that focused on weak 

 stocks. This would hdp meet the continuing ESA diaDcnge, and would require most of our 

 funding capability. We did not esxpea Phase IV, which is directed at resident fish and wikUife, to 

 be an equally urgent requirement. Bonneville's budget includes a modest amount for planning, 

 design and environmental activities for new activities under Phase IV, but we assumed that the 

 much more costly capital-intensive measures would not begin until FY 1996. 



It is also important to remember that Bonneville has expended significant funding and eflFort on 

 wildlife activities since passage of the Coundl's Wildlife Ruk in 1989. We fimded about $8 million 

 worth of wildlife loss assessments in the region to determine the levd of losses resulting fixjm 

 construction of the dams. Prior to adoption of the Wildlifi: Rule, we conduded a S12.5 mfllion 

 titist with the State of Montana for the accomplishment of its wildlife objectives. Additionally we 

 purchased nearly 70,000 aaes of high qualhy wildlife habitat m the regjon and will soon provide 

 about SIO million b fimding to mitigate for wildlife losses at Dworshak Dam in Idaho. , We 

 recently conqdeted an interim wildlife agreement with the Washington Wildlife Coalition which 

 provides them with $45.5 million through 1997, primarily for the acquisition of wildlifi! mitigation 

 lands. Finally we fimded the Or^on Wildlife Coalition to develop mitigation planning from which 

 we win begin negotiating a trtist agreement with Oregon. Even though we have not started 

 negotiations, we agreed to and have purchased two high priority properties, Conforth Ranch and 

 Burlington Bottoms. The CoundTs 1989 Wildlife Rule called on BPA to accomplish mitigaUon for 

 35% of the regional losses over the next ten years. We beBeve we arc on course to meet that goal, 

 and perhaps are wdl ahead of sdiedule. 



We have also not ignored readent fish. Bonneville has moved forward with a number of 

 important actions which we felt were warranted, even m view of the priority on anadromous 

 fish. We cooperated with Washington Water Power aixl Idaho Fish and Game to construa the 



